First round on the runway.

With the U.S. Women’s Open kicking off today, it looks like there’s a new theme that’s attracting the audience this year: fashion. Ooh ooh, I got a joke. What does fashion have to do with golf? Nothing, but we’re talking about women’s golf, silly!
While I’ve always personally wanted an excuse to wear argyle socks (and don’t you just love the word “knickersâ€?), this new style of fashion described is not-so-original and a wee “slutifiedâ€? — the three descriptors from the article that stand out in my mind are “mini-skirts,â€? “tight topsâ€? and “pink.â€? (There’s also the “funky headscarves,â€? but that’s more cheesy than anything.)
Don’t get me wrong; I love short, tight gear and rock it all the time. But it really gets my knickers (a different meaning this time) in a twist when focus is put on the athletes’ sexual appeal or something so stereotypically “female” as fashion to legitimize a women’s sport.
Thoughts?

and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

41 Comments

  1. Posted June 30, 2006 at 1:20 am | Permalink

    Huge pet peeve of mine…
    That’s just what made soccar so big – when Mia Hamm took off her shirt when they scored that last goal.
    And they keep trying to fem up the WNBA players to get more people watching and to make people stop saying they’re all lesbians(and when I say people, I mean men – you know, the ones with money and power)as if there’s something wrong with looking tough and being a dyke. Look at Becky Hammon – she used to be this adorable soft butch and now she has this gross streaked hair and is trying to be fem.
    Ugh – it’d be fine if it were simply what the athletes wanted to wear, but it’s so obvious there’s a huge amount of social pressure on them to be “hot”.

  2. Posted June 30, 2006 at 2:20 am | Permalink

    I actually thought the Mia Hamm thing was really cool, given that (a) it’s not like sports bras are stripper attire, and (b) it’s something that male players do all the time. But I’m afraid the media’s voyeuristic dirty-old-man reaction kind of ruined what was originally a statement of liberation and power.
    If people would just grow up and learn to respect each other, the world would suck a whole lot less.
    Cheers,
    TH

  3. Posted June 30, 2006 at 5:51 am | Permalink

    I remember that women’s soccer had already gotten pretty big BEFORE Mia Hammm took off her shirt, although that did get a lot of attention.
    (I didn’t think it was Mia Hamm; I thought it was a different player?)

  4. manda
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    Happy Feminist is correct – Brandi Chastain was the one who removed her top during the Olympics.

  5. stupid male
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    ok, ladies. You must realize by now that men think Women in sports are all lesbians.
    And that men love watching lesbians. especially beautiful (from a male standpoint) sexy lesbians.
    So,,— since men DO still control most everything in this society (what Woman would bomb another country?) the Feminists must learn to “use” men until such time as their is a power transfer to the smarter Gender.
    keep trying

  6. Eshew Obfuscation
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Actually, I thought it was the U.S. women dominating the 1994 Women’s World Cup that made Soccer so big.
    And if male athletes can be exploited for their sex appeal (many Baseball, Football and Basketball Stars have been in advertising aimed at women solely for their sex appeal), then why shouldn’t women? I think the entertainment industry has a lot of bigger flaws than exploiting sexuality…

  7. noname
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    “ok, ladies. You must realize by now that men think Women in sports are all lesbians.
    And that men love watching lesbians. especially beautiful (from a male standpoint) sexy lesbians.” – stupid male
    I have to disagree. People think butch women athletes are lesbians (see the WNBA). Feminine woman athletes are not generally subject to the same assumptions (see tennis).

  8. noname
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    The thing is, often these assumptions are accurate. Here is Sheryl Swoopes trying to counter the assumption that the WNBA is “full of lesbians”:
    “But the talk about the WNBA being full of lesbians is not true. I mean, there are as many straight women in the league as there are gay.”
    I don’t think she shattered anyone’s assumptions with that quote.
    The problem is, many people are trying to cover this up rather than admitting it and challenging the public at large to accept it.

  9. Posted June 30, 2006 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    It’s the double standard that’s been around as long as women have been in sport. Babe Zaharias kicked ass and was reviled for being too manly. Chris Everett was America’s sweetheart and was held up as the sweet, feminine antithesis to that big bad muscular Martina Navratilova. And even after the success of the ’94 women’s Nats in the World Cup (and subsequent Olympics), once the furor over Chastain’s bra died down, who’s the new face of US soccer? Is it big, soft-butch leading scorer Abby Wambach? Nope, it’s petite, pinup pretty Heather Mitts, who can’t defend the corner run to save her million-dollar behind.
    Male athletes are judged on performance first, aesthetics second. Nobody cares if they’re, uh, a little short of photogenic (Randy Johnson, anyone?) or big tubs of lard (Warren Sapp, anyone?)–as long as they perform on the field, they’re heroes. But for top female athletes to be accepted by mainstream viewing audiences–read “men”–they’ve gotta be prettied up, especially in sports that are notoriously swarming with lesbians.
    And even then, sexuality trumps both performance and appearance. Just look at Swoopes (beautiful AND one of the best female hoopsters ever). She came out and was widely vilified by knuckledraggers everywhere who suddenly forgot about all the stats, all the glam shots, and all the shoe commercials and busied themselves with deep observations on the ESPN message boards like “Swoopes eats ****y.”
    That’s why it’s sad that the governing bodies of so many women’s sports and their leagues seem intent on continuing this Sisyphian struggle to cast their athletes as commodities that will be attractive to straight men, rather than focusing on the athletes as athletes and implicitly demanding that they be judged by the same standard as male athletes–performance on the field.

  10. MsJane
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    Yes, it was young Chastain not Hamm who took off her top. But there was a large sports bra under it, so it was no big deal. I think it was just an expression of exuberance. And really, the shirts are big and the girls probably workout in less than that. Maybe she felt like, I’m sweaty, dirty, hot, exhausted and I’ve just scored the last famous goal, and I’m going to take this damn thing off. Under that shirt was Strength and Power in the form of clearly feminine lines. I think she claimed something there in that moment. It was a good thing.
    In regards to golf, who knows. I don’t watch it. But I’ve noticed that young players have taken the bull by the horns in that sport, are fiercely competitive and are demanding respect. That’s good, although women’s golf is not fading away by any means. If anything Hamm’s beloved soccer was in dire straights as the league actually disbanded. But, it’s good to see youth get involved in golf. The attention is not bad at all, I don’t think. And Creamer is very good. She’s known for the pink. As long as the girls are doing what they want and enjoy, then whatever. Now if hooters outfits start showing up on the greens, I’ll be annoyed.
    But since golf is somewhat of a sport…sigh, I don’t think that will happen. To me, golf is a little like tennis, only less athletic. I know the golf loving people will hate me for saying that, but really, what do you do except walk around and push a little ball around on the ground with a stick. These girls (and guys) are not dragging their butts up and down a soccer, hockey or basketball court like the real athletes. So there’s lots of room for socializing, editorializing, talking about fashion and so on, to relieve the boredom. I mean, Tiger Woods was a huge deal just for being half black. That’s how strange golf is.

  11. MsJane
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    Yes, it was young Chastain not Hamm who took off her top. But there was a large sports bra under it, so it was no big deal. I think it was just an expression of exuberance. And really, the shirts are big and the girls probably workout in less than that. Maybe she felt like, I’m sweaty, dirty, hot, exhausted and I’ve just scored the last famous goal, and I’m going to take this damn thing off. Under that shirt was Strength and Power in the form of clearly feminine lines. I think she claimed something there in that moment. It was a good thing.
    In regards to golf, who knows. I don’t watch it. But I’ve noticed that young players have taken the bull by the horns in that sport, are fiercely competitive and are demanding respect. That’s good, although women’s golf is not fading away by any means. If anything Hamm’s beloved soccer was in dire straights as the league actually disbanded. But, it’s good to see youth get involved in golf. The attention is not bad at all, I don’t think. And Creamer is very good. She’s known for the pink. As long as the girls are doing what they want and enjoy, then whatever. Now if hooters outfits start showing up on the greens, I’ll be annoyed.
    But since golf is somewhat of a sport…sigh, I don’t think that will happen. To me, golf is a little like tennis, only less athletic. I know the golf loving people will hate me for saying that, but really, what do you do except walk around and push a little ball around on the ground with a stick. These girls (and guys) are not dragging their butts up and down a soccer, hockey or basketball court like the real athletes. So there’s lots of room for socializing, editorializing, talking about fashion and so on, to relieve the boredom. I mean, Tiger Woods was a huge deal just for being half black. That’s how strange golf is.

  12. MsJane
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    boltgirl, I think Abby is just adorable, and has such heart and such a great attitude. Who the heck is Heather Mitts?
    I agree with what you said about Swoopes. It was quite humorous.

  13. Posted June 30, 2006 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    Actually, the use of makeup in women’s hockey is the one that aggravates me the most. These athletes are some of the hardest-working in all of sports, charging up and down the ice in shifts so strenuous that they’re generally limited to less than a minute at a time–but when they pull off their helmets for an interview, they’re wearing makeup! What is that about? I can’t imagine putting on my 20-40 pounds of equipment and then running to the mirror to make sure my mascara looks okay. Do they really want to wear it, or are they told they need to in order to seem less threatening to the poor widdle viewers?

  14. Posted June 30, 2006 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Sorry about the wrong soccer player thing…failed to look it up before mouthing off.
    And yes, the whole reason she took the shirt off was out of pure excitement – and rightfully so – and it was a great moment, looking at it from an accomplishment point of view. But what I heard everyone talking about was the fact that she took it off. I hadn’t heard anyone talking about it before that – so it really turned it into something that it wasn’t – sex appeal.
    and boltgirl – ditto.

  15. leederick
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    “…it’s sad that the governing bodies of so many women’s sports and their leagues seem intent on continuing this Sisyphian struggle to cast their athletes as commodities that will be attractive to straight men, rather than focusing on the athletes as athletes and implicitly demanding that they be judged by the same standard as male athletes–performance on the field.”
    To be brutal. With a few exceptions (like gymnastics), if women athletes were judged by the same standard as men the conclusion that would be drawn is that they’re second rate and you might as well be watching B-list men’s sports.

  16. nonwhiteperson
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    If women athletes were judged by the same standard as men the conclusion that would be drawn is that they’re second rate and you might as well be watching B-list men’s sports.
    Leederick,
    Boltgirl said that women should be judged by the same standard as male athletes–performance on the field and not that men and women’s performances should be compared with each other. So gymnastics and other sports are the same in that men and women should be judged by their performances and men and women’s performances are compared with each other.

  17. nonwhiteperson
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    err, notcompared with each other.

  18. noname
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    “That’s why it’s sad that the governing bodies of so many women’s sports and their leagues seem intent on continuing this Sisyphian struggle to cast their athletes as commodities that will be attractive to straight men, rather than focusing on the athletes as athletes and implicitly demanding that they be judged by the same standard as male athletes–performance on the field.” – boltgirl
    I would argue that male and female athletes are judged the same by these governing bodies. They are all judged by how much revenue they can generate for these leagues. As it happens, female athletes are not generally very marketable on their athletic merit (with some exceptions), so sex appeal is thrown in to keep these leagues afloat. Don’t blame sports leagues for reacting to public interests. Maybe if women supported women’s leagues, they wouldn’t have to pander to male tastes.
    BTW, you show me a marketing plan that “implicitly demands� something of the public that the public does not want, and I’ll show you a failed business.

  19. nonwhiteperson
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

    Spectator sports are commodified but the post was about the playing up sexual appeal for straight men. The discussion included athletes like Crissy Evert’s popularity vs. Martina’s (Remember the hell she caught for coming out as a lesbian? She caught hell for it until the end of her career), Brandi Chastain getting the attention of straight men (Wow. A sports bra. It was apparently very exciting to men) and “petite, pinup pretty Heather Mitts, who can’t defend the corner run to save her million-dollar behind” (This reminds me of Anna Kournikova who never won any tournaments but boosted the popularity women’s tennis for a while). Men’s sports are mostly commodified to attract straight male audiences, not to sexually appeal to straight women. It would be fun if we were catered in to that way like the fun men get out of seeing some skin in women’s sports.
    Mini-skirts, tight tops and pink. Don’t get me wrong; I love short, tight gear and rock it all the time. But it really gets my knickers in a twist when focus is put on the athletes’ sexual appeal or something so stereotypically “female” as fashion to legitimize a women’s sport.

  20. nonwhiteperson
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Spectator sports are commodified but the post was about the playing up sexual appeal for straight men. The discussion included athletes like Crissy Evert’s popularity vs. Martina’s (Remember the hell she caught for coming out as a lesbian? She caught hell for it until the end of her career), Brandi Chastain getting the attention of straight men (Wow. A sports bra. It was apparently very exciting to men) and “petite, pinup pretty Heather Mitts, who can’t defend the corner run to save her million-dollar behind” (This reminds me of Anna Kournikova who never won any tournaments but boosted the popularity women’s tennis for a while). Men’s sports are mostly commodified to attract straight male audiences, not to sexually appeal to straight women. It would be fun if we were catered in to that way like the fun men get out of seeing some skin in women’s sports.
    Mini-skirts, tight tops and pink. Don’t get me wrong; I love short, tight gear and rock it all the time. But it really gets my knickers in a twist when focus is put on the athletes’ sexual appeal or something so stereotypically “female” as fashion to legitimize a women’s sport.

  21. noname
    Posted June 30, 2006 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

    nonwhiteperson – I agree. I was simply pointing out that it is a mistake to blame a business for caterring to what the public wants. Most businesses are not in a position to manufacture demand.

  22. boltgirl
    Posted July 1, 2006 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    Oh, I’m well aware that sports are commodified. What I find unfortunate is conflating “the public” with “straight men.” In the pre-cable world of three broadcast networks and maybe eight hours of sports programming each week, it was a more compelling argument to let the market–read, again, “men”–determine both programming content and league marketing. But in the cable, digital cable, and satellite era, where most households have access to at least two and as many as sic or seven 24-hour sports networks, I don’t buy the argument that the perceived preferences of 18-to-54-year-old men should dictate coverage.
    When ESPN2 puts on hours of poker, curling, and “Stump the Schwab” coverage every week, and Fox Sports has the rodeo, and over on ESPNU they’re re-running the USC-UCLA yawner from last season, doesn’t that represent enough of a target audience dilution to knock holes in the “public demand” argument?
    No, you can’t evaluate women’s basketball, for example, by the same standards you use to judge the NBA, and you won’t see a women’s fastpitch softball team taking on the Red Sox anytime soon. But explain to me why that means women’s athletics are inherently inferior to men’s. But convince me that the public (er, excuse me, The Public) was clamoring for Texas Hold ‘Em marathons before ESPN grabbed hold of the latest fad and gave it credibility with a cool logo and banner coverage on their website, and maybe you’ll convince me that markets can’t be manufactured with the proper approach.
    The current market reflects the belief (and, granted, the larger reality) that men prefer to watch athletes they think they can either emulate or sleep with. Changing that will require a sea change in American attitudes toward sport. Not optimistic about either happening.

  23. Eshew Obfuscation
    Posted July 1, 2006 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    “But convince me that the public (er, excuse me, The Public) was clamoring for Texas Hold ‘Em marathons before ESPN grabbed hold of the latest fad and gave it credibility with a cool logo and banner coverage on their website, and maybe you’ll convince me that markets can’t be manufactured with the proper approach.”
    Actually, the latest poker fad began to gain steam when the Matt Damon/Ben Affleck movie Rounders was released in 98/99. ESPN had always televised the World Series of Poker matches, but it was mostly a niche market.
    All of that changed when the World Poker Tour was started on the travel channel. What started as a small basic cable show caught on with the public rather quickly and was an instant success. All of a sudden texas hold-em was the latest fad. While the public hadn’t been clammoring for poker before this, after they were exposed to it, they were found to have an insatiable appetite for it.
    This was before ESPN gave it “credibility” like you are asserting.
    In this instance ESPN didn’t create demand (nor did WPT or its creator Stephen Lipscombe), they had a great idea, and the demand created itself.
    That said, I love the poker fad because of its sexual equality. While the female/male ratio of players is not a 50/50 split. Poker is one of the few “sports” you see on tv where men and women compete together publically at the same level.
    I have a weakness for Celebrity Poker on the Bravo network (mostly because I have an affinity for a few of the B-level celebrities they get on the show, and also I’m an old school Kids in the Hall fan), and quite often it will be a woman and not a man that wins the match…which I think rules.
    And Boltgirl, as a heterosexual male, I honestly do prefer to watch male sports…
    I love MLBaseball, I love NBA Basketball, and I love men’s soccer. I’ve never watched any womens versions of these games (except in high school when we were friends with girls on the team and wanted to root on our friends) because I frankly don’t find them as exciting as the mens versions. Perhaps men do actually prefer to watch male athletes. If that’s true, do you think female sports should try and convince men that they like watching female athletes instead or should they try to cultivate more of a female audience?
    I honestly don’t have that much of a problem with sports, seeing that it is an entertainment industry. If Golf gains viewers by focusing on fashion and sexuality…good for Golf…if the ladies of golf actually just like their fashion and sexuality…good for them. I know Golf is still an effing boring sport, and you will rarely catch me watching it (except for highlights on sportscenter).

  24. EG
    Posted July 1, 2006 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    It seems to me like a lot of arguments here are tending toward becoming some version of “Sports are sexist because sexism is popular.” Well, that’s true, of course. But that’s no justification, in my book. Lots of forms of entertainment are sexist–and I’m not happy with any of that sexism, no matter how popular it is.

  25. noname
    Posted July 1, 2006 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    “Oh, I’m well aware that sports are commodified. What I find unfortunate is conflating “the public” with “straight men.” – boltgirl
    In the case of sports, straight men are the only demographic to have carried a sports league. Don’t blame men for not watching women’s sports when women don’t watch either (in large numbers).
    “But convince me that the public (er, excuse me, The Public) was clamoring for Texas Hold ‘Em marathons before ESPN grabbed hold of the latest fad and gave it credibility with a cool logo and banner coverage on their website, and maybe you’ll convince me that markets can’t be manufactured with the proper approach.” – boltgirl
    The NBA has been trying to create a market for the WNBA for years (with dismal results). The NBA has relentlessly used its popularity to plug the WNBA. They have gone so far as to force ESPN to show WNBA highlights or lose the rights to NBA highlights (on second reading I must admit that this is a widely held assumption, not admitted fact). The fact that a sports giant like the NBA has not been able to elevate the WNBA above niche status despite repeated efforts should tell you something about creating demand.
    Do you really think it is so easy to create a fad like poker? You could make a lot of money if you know the “proper approach” (I dare say Feminism could use your help as well).
    “The current market reflects the belief (and, granted, the larger reality) that men prefer to watch athletes they think they can either emulate or sleep with. Changing that will require a sea change in American attitudes toward sport.”- boltgirl
    Why should we change that? Why aren’t we talking about women who don’t support women’s sports?

  26. Eshew Obfuscation
    Posted July 1, 2006 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

    Noname…Exactly!

  27. nonwhiteperson
    Posted July 2, 2006 at 1:15 am | Permalink

    Like boltgirl said, sports can be marketed in ways that appeal to men. I remember when the American women’s basketball team were winning Olympics or something and a commentator said that women’s basketball is different than men’s in that their strategies are more complex and that women’s basketball is more collaborative. They share more and include the whole team on the floor (my dad told me this so forgive me if I don’t have the facts on this. He’s a real feminist and told me). I think there’s something wrong with a public that watches so much sports in the first place. Excessive sports watching influences the values of our society. The example of women’s basketball would be a reflection of an improvement in our values.
    Back to commodification, the demand for prostitution does not make it right. Slutification of women’s sports does not make the demand for it right. So there is a qualitative difference between commodification of sports and slutification of sports. The sea change that needs to happen is men need to value women’s sports the way women play them and men should not have a demand for women’s sexualized bodies in sports.

  28. nonwhiteperson
    Posted July 2, 2006 at 1:38 am | Permalink

    I’ll get killed by women scientists for saying this but this talk about women’s basketball is similar to the way women “do” science compared to men. I read an article a couple years ago on how some women scientists approach science differently than men. Like women’s basketball, methods are more complex, collaborative, there is more sharing and using everyone on the team. We know that some men do not value women scientists the same way some men do not watch women’s team sports. The way women do science has been touted as superior to traditional scientific methods because there is more complexity and sharing. (Women scientists, please don’t kill me. I said some women scientists. Many women scientists do it exactly the same way as men.) Science and men need to embrace women scientists and the different ways they do science.

  29. noname
    Posted July 2, 2006 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    “women’s basketball is different than men’s in that their strategies are more complex and that women’s basketball is more collaborative. They share more and include the whole team on the floor.” – nonwhiteperson
    I have heard the same thing. If you add to this the comparative lack of athleticism, you will have both an accurate picture of women’s basketball and a compelling reason as to why it is not very popular.
    “The sea change that needs to happen is men need to value women’s sports the way women play them and men should not have a demand for women’s sexualized bodies in sports.” – nonwhiteperson
    Again: why are men responsible for supporting something women don’t support either?
    BTW, do you really believe that wearing a miniskirt or a tight top is “slutification�? I imagine there are many here on this site who would beg to differ (including me).

  30. nonwhiteperson
    Posted July 2, 2006 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    I have heard the same thing. If you add to this the comparative lack of athleticism, you will have both an accurate picture of women’s basketball and a compelling reason as to why it is not very popular.
    With the example of women’s basketball, women fulfill the definition of athleticism better than men:
    1. Of or befitting athletics or athletes.
    2. Characterized by or involving physical activity or exertion.
    3. Physically strong and well-developed, muscular.
    so it’s isn’t about athleticism but the reason men watch sports which is to emulate or vicariously experience power, aggression and domination. If women’s basketball for example is more complex, team-oriented and athletic than men’s, shouldn’t men watch more women’s basketball than men’s? Men watch women’s sports imagining they can sleep with the women and men watch men’s sports imagining they can be as powerful, aggressive and dominating, paralleling gender relations in the rest of society. Like the example I gave about women in science, women’s sports should be embraced for what women have to offer science or in this case, basketball.
    Again: why are men responsible for supporting something women don’t support either?
    Like I said, women have something interesting to offer in their approach to sports, science, etc. In a perfect world, men would watch women’s and men’s sports equally. Actually, in a perfect world, people wouldn’t watch so much sports because of the reasons they watch them, to vicariously experience power, aggression and domination. I’m proud because I always catch my dad watching women’s basketball and women’s sports.
    BTW, do you really believe that wearing a miniskirt or a tight top is “slutification�? I imagine there are many here on this site who would beg to differ (including me).
    Are you a troll?
    Did you read the post?

  31. noname
    Posted July 2, 2006 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    “With the example of women’s basketball, women fulfill the definition of athleticism better than men:” – nonwhiteperson
    How so? Let’s go through this one by one (disregarding for a moment that these are actually the definitions of “athleticâ€? not “athleticismâ€?):
    1. Of or befitting athletics or athletes.
    Pretty much a wash, here. Anyone who participates in athletics can be labeled athletic by this definition.
    2. Characterized by or involving physical activity or exertion.
    In general, men’s sports usually involve more physical exertion. For example, women’s games are shorter in both basketball and tennis. I would also argue that since men’s teams play at a higher level, it would take much more exertion to play the men’s game (ex. an NBA star might beat a WNBA star without breaking a sweat, whereas they would have to play hard against another NBA star). This obviously has nothing to do with golf, however.
    3. Physically strong and well-developed, muscular.
    Men typically have more muscle mass then women.
    So how, again, do women “fulfill the definition of athleticism better than men�?
    “Again: why are men responsible for supporting something women don’t support either?� – noname
    “Like I said, women have something interesting to offer in their approach to sports, science, etc. In a perfect world, men would watch women’s and men’s sports equally.â€? – nonwhiteperson
    I’ll let my question stand, since you make no effort to answer it.
    “Are you a troll?
    Did you read the post?� – nonwhiteperson
    No, I’m not a troll. Yes, I read the post. Would you like to answer my question now? Do you really believe that wearing a miniskirt or a tight top is “slutification�?

  32. noname
    Posted July 2, 2006 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    I apologize if the previous post shows a bit of anger on my part. I just don’t appreciate the troll label being carted out yet again during an otherwise civil (and somewhat interesting) conversation.

  33. nonwhiteperson
    Posted July 2, 2006 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    1. Of or befitting athletics or athletes.
    2. Characterized by or involving physical activity or exertion.
    3. Physically strong and well-developed, muscular.

    The most important trait in athletics is sportsmanship and teamwork. That is what I consider athleticism.
    This goes back to earlier discussions on this post. We’re not comparing men and women’s competitions. Of course there is plenty of physical activity and exertion going on in women’s sports and women athletes are definitely physically strong and well-developed, muscular.
    I didn’t dodge your question. If you look back over my last several responses, you will find the answer.
    Do you really believe that wearing a miniskirt or a tight top is “slutification�? I imagine there are many here on this site who would beg to differ including me.
    I wouldn’t use the same word as in the post, “slutification”, but I totally with what she says farther into the post.
    It really gets my knickers (a different meaning this time) in a twist when focus is put on the athletes’ sexual appeal or something so stereotypically “female” as fashion to legitimize a women’s sport.

  34. noname
    Posted July 3, 2006 at 12:53 am | Permalink

    “The most important trait in athletics is sportsmanship and teamwork. That is what I consider athleticism.” – nonwhiteperson
    I get it now. We are simply using the word “athleticism” in completely different ways (mine would be size, speed, strength, and agility combined as useful in various athletic endeavors.).
    “I wouldn’t use the same word as in the post, “slutification”, but I totally with what she says farther into the post.â€? – nonwhiteperson
    Thank you for clarifying.
    “It really gets my knickers (a different meaning this time) in a twist when focus is put on the athletes’ sexual appeal or something so stereotypically “female” as fashion to legitimize a women’s sport.â€? – nonwhiteperson quoting Vanessa
    You have every right to feel that way. I only disagree when you start directing “should� statements at others.
    Anyway, I watched the golf today and it was quite entertaining (as far as televised golf can be regardless of gender).

  35. noname
    Posted July 3, 2006 at 2:55 pm | Permalink
  36. Posted July 4, 2006 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    I think the media is interested in the fashion-aspect of everything women do. This is part of the overal fascination with female beauty that the media has, which, as I pointed out on my own blog, is largely produced by women and for women. (i.e. women read fashion-related stuff more than men).
    Excellent female atheletes are admired regardless of how sexy they are, but if they are sexy, too, even more attention is showered on them. Is this suprising? Not to me. Is it a bad thing? I can’t say. Hot men get more attention than non-hot men and hot women get more attention than non-hot women. I think this is driven by women just as much my men and I’m not certain there is a double-standard here at all except that most male golfers are not at all hot.

  37. chem_fem
    Posted July 4, 2006 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    noname – So is this better?
    Wimbledon threatens crackdown on cleavage
    Wimbledon is an institution so therefore is a law unto itself. Here are some other Wimbledon fashion issues….
    noname – (Women scientists, please don’t kill me. I said some women scientists. Many women scientists do it exactly the same way as men.) Science and men need to embrace women scientists and the different ways they do science.
    What a pointless comment. Some men do science differently and are labelled geniuses for the breakthroughs they make. ‘Some women do something this way..’ is not a trend or a generalisation. It’s like saying many women like pink – but some don’t – What is the point that is being made?? Science is no different from any other environment and short of women not venturing much into male dominated physics very often (not through lack of ability) there is about as much difference between male and female scientists as between any two scientists of the same sex.
    You are right that science should embrace every individuals approach in order to progress, but when considering class, culture, region, religion, sex, age, inherited traits and talent the divide of gender is barely relevant.

  38. chem_fem
    Posted July 4, 2006 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    noname – So is this better?
    Wimbledon threatens crackdown on cleavage
    Wimbledon is an institution so therefore is a law unto itself. Here are some other Wimbledon fashion issues….
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/4088298.stm
    noname – (Women scientists, please don’t kill me. I said some women scientists. Many women scientists do it exactly the same way as men.) Science and men need to embrace women scientists and the different ways they do science.
    What a pointless comment. Some men do science differently and are labelled geniuses for the breakthroughs they make. ‘Some women do something this way..’ is not a trend or a generalisation. It’s like saying many women like pink – but some don’t – What is the point that is being made?? Science is no different from any other environment and short of women not venturing much into male dominated physics very often (not through lack of ability) there is about as much difference between male and female scientists as between any two scientists of the same sex.
    You are right that science should embrace every individuals approach in order to progress, but when considering class, culture, region, religion, sex, age, inherited traits and talent the divide of gender is barely relevant.

  39. noname
    Posted July 4, 2006 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    chem_fem – I didn’t make that second comment (about women scientists). nonwhiteperson did.

  40. chem_fem
    Posted July 4, 2006 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

    Thanks for correcting me noname.
    Sorry for the mis-quote.

  41. noname
    Posted July 5, 2006 at 2:14 am | Permalink

    No need for thanks, and certainly no problem. Honest mistake.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

199 queries. 0.990 seconds